I’ve been asked by managers several times. whether or not they should attempt to mediate conflicts between employees. Let’s look at some facts: A 2008 survey of 5,000 full-time employees in the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were asked what managers could do to manage conflicts. 40% said that managers should act as mediators when conflict develops.

But the truth is many organizations do not provide managers with conflict management training and many feel that handling conflict is one of their least important duties, believing employees should deal with their own issues. And while employees may believe that managers should act as mediators, that may not be an appropriate role within some organizations. Though there may or may not be established rules and procedures for how line managers should handle conflicts, without proper training or intervention, dysfunctional conflicts may become detrimental to the organization.

So, if a manager would like to try mediation, and if it’s permitted by their organization, should they? In those cases it is completely appropriate for managers to utilize mediation skills. But remember, the manager might be using some mediation skills, but they are not acting formally nor legally as a mediator.

The manager must clearly describe their role by making it very clear that he or she will assume a neurtral role and that after the meeting, present positions will continue as before the process began. The manager needs to explain the matter of confidentiality. If the manager cannot assure confidentiality of what is to be discussed, then they should be transparent. And the manager should make it known as to what will happen if no agreement is reached. For example, the manager might decide it best to refer the dispute to Human Resources. 

 I would recommend considering using an opening statement similar to this:

Let me explain our meeting today.  I know the two of you have had some conflicts. Before I take any action myself, I want to give the two of you the opportunity to work this out on your own.  In this meeting, I will be a neutral facilitator.  I really don’t know the history of the issues so I will be neutral and impartial. If we’re unable to resolve the disagreement in the next half hour or so, I will refer you to Human Resources.

I’d like to encourage you to be open and honest, but I should say that you should not assume what is said here is confidential.

I know the two of you have worked together for years and believe you’d both like to resolve any issues so the workplace can be as productive for you as it was before this conflict began.

What I’ve learned from experience is that the best way for me to conduct this session is to ask one of you to tell your story uninterrupted. I may ask a few questions at that point. Then I’ll ask the other to tell their story.  Again I may ask a few questions. We’ll then see if through discussion we can work out the issues.  If I think a private meeting with one or both of you might help to move the discussion along, I will do that.

I believe you both want resolution. Withi that in mind, I’d like to ask that we all listen respectfully and do not interrupt each other. Again, I want to give you the opportunity to resolve the issues yourself.

With these cautions, my answer is yes, managers can use mediation skills to help employess deal with interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.

As a beginning mediator, I would on occasion ask disputants in private caucuses, “Who is right and who is wrong in this conflict?,” and, “Has everyone told the truth?” Of course, the answers where consistently, “I’m right; the other party is wrong,” and, “The other party is not telling the truth.”

 I struggled with this in teaching others to be mediators and eventually began to say, “Everyone believes they are telling the truth.” The implication of that is, of course, that the parties also believe the other party is not being truthful. And in mediation classes to further the point I would say, “the truth doesn’t matter, it’s not the mediator’s job to determine who is telling the truth.”

Psychologists have long studied cognitive bias in decision making and the systematic errors in thinking that influence our decisions. One example is that we all seek out evidence that confirms our beliefs and ignore information that challenges them. So by the time disputants come to mediation or go to trial, they have attended to messages and information that supports their positions and ignored or discounted the ones that challenge their positions.

So, I’ve come to the position of saying that disputants in mediation typically believe they are completely “right” and that the other party is flat-out “wrong.” That cognitive bias is often the major challenge in mediation and dispute resolution.

How do mediators deal with this challenge? I can only speak for myself and describe two strategies to help the disputants move into a place where they are able to work together to find a resolution. One is to help the parties begin to understand how it is possible that their adversary could come to see the dispute the way they do. I ask questions such as, “How could a person in their position see the conflict the way they do?,” and, “If you were in their position, how would you see the conflict?”

 The other strategy, and more typically, I attempt to keep the parties focused on the future and not the past. In other words, my helping the parties focus on, “where they want to go from here,” takes the attention away from, “how do we get here?”  In most cases when parties have reached a resolution, the misunderstandings of how the dispute started fade in importance.

In one large mediation over billing charges for printing services the parties had folders of documentation as evidence of their position, but the dispute eventually came down to the meaning of the phrase, “cost plus expenses.” Each had a very different meaning for what they had agreed “expenses” were and each contended with enthusiasm that there had been deliberate misleading statements made. But during the mediation the parties were able to reach a mutually agreed upon resolution when they focused not on who had “lied,” but on where they were to go in the future. Of course, they both believed they were each “right,” but in the end it didn’t matter. How best to continue working together was more important.